Humanism, Secularism, Feminism

Taslima Nasreen

Taslima Nasreen, an award-winning writer, physician, secular humanist and human rights activist, is known for her powerful writings on women oppression and unflinching criticism of religion, despite forced exile and multiple fatwas calling for her death. In India, Bangladesh and abroad, Nasreen’s fiction, nonfiction, poetry and memoir have topped the best-seller’s list.

Taslima Nasreen was born in Bangladesh. She started writing when she was 13. Her writings won the hearts of people across the border and she landed with the prestigious literary award Ananda from India in 1992. Taslima won The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought from the European Parliament in 1994. She received the Kurt Tucholsky Award from Swedish PEN, the Simone de Beauvoir Award and Human Rights Award from Government of France, Le Prix de l' Edit de Nantes from the city of Nantes, France, Academy prize from the Royal Academy of arts, science and literature from Belgium. She is a Humanist Laureate in The International Academy for Humanism,USA. She won Distinguished Humanist Award from International Humanist and Ethical Union, Free-thought Heroine award from Freedom From Religion foundation, USA., IBKA award, Germany,and Feminist Press Award, USA . She got the UNESCO Madanjeet Singh prize for Promotion of the Tolerance and Non-violence in 2005. She received the Medal of honor of Lyon. She got honorary citizenship from Paris, Nantes, Lyon, Metz, Thionville, Esch etc. Taslima was awarded the Condorcet-Aron Prize at the “Parliament of the French Community of Belgium” in Brussels and Ananda literary award again in 2000.

Bestowed with honorary doctorates from Gent University and UCL in Belgium, and American University of Paris and Paris Diderot University in France, she has addressed gatherings in major venues of the world like the European Parliament, National Assembly of France, Universities of Sorbonne, Oxford, Harvard, Yale, etc. She got fellowships as a research scholar at Harvard and New York Universities. She was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow in the USA in 2009.

Taslima has written 35 books in Bengali, which includes poetry, essays, novels and autobiography series. Her works have been translated in thirty different languages. Some of her books are banned in Bangladesh. Because of her thoughts and ideas she has been banned, blacklisted and banished from Bengal, both from Bangladesh and West Bengal part of India. She has been prevented by the authorities from returning to her country since 1994, and to West Bengal since 2007.

EVENTS

Are men truly that stupid?

A German liquor company called G-Spirits is promising customers that “every drop” of its line of alcoholic beverages has been poured on the naked breasts of a certified model— with her approval, of course.

The company claims that the stock is limited to a mere 5000 bottles and comes with a certificate, including the original signature of the model and the bottle number, which proves that “every single drop” touched the model’s flesh.

The booze brand brags that its barrel-aged whisky has been thoroughly splashed on the ample bosom of Alexa Varga, Hungary’s 2012 Playboy Playmate of the Year.

“After storing it in ex-bourbon casks for 10 years and 1 year in barrels of French oak, it was poured over Amina’s breasts, which lends it a unique erotic character,” according to the company website.
All bottles come with nude photos of the models in mid-dousing, of course.

Will men buy G-Spirits’ alcohol because every drop of it poured on the naked breasts of a beautiful woman before bottling? Why do companies think men are stupid? Are men truly that stupid?

Sex sells. The highest priced book in my house (Amazon ) is Sex, Money and Morality, in the Zed Press series. It was about $100 (any condition) last time I looked.

@laconicsax gives excellent theory behind this.

I think this type of behaviour (scanty dressed women + food) has been a characteristic of the rich and powerful since the dawn of history… or at least history since social stratification started. Strong liquor ads sell fantasy that men can behave like an oriental dictator/son of heaven.

Possible alternative theory: Some men are stupid enough to try and sell this product.

Anyway, the guy in the ad also helpfully explains (in a dialect that is totally at odds with the pseudo-sophistication of the product and video clip) that this product is “directed at those for whom taste is not enough”.
I guess that includes those without taste to begin with. (Seriously… I wouldn’t want anyone’s skin cells and body lotion in my drink, thank you very much.)

Male stupidity is the only truly unlimited resource in the world. As a student of renewable energy, what interests me is how to convert all that stupidity into electricity. There are some major technical challenges involved (stupidity is after all far more dangerous than nuclear energy), but if they can be overcome, I confidently predict that energy shortages will be something we’ll never have to worry about again.

I’m absolutely certain that you could find some power output-enhancing kind of dipole effect by combining male stupidity with the female variety. I can help you find vast deposits of this obviously similarly endless resource in any of my “spiritually inclined” acquaintances facebook streams…

Admittedly quite a funny joke. But still what you’re saying is kind of sexist. The scientists who came up with most of the work you do; are they not men? To assume that a hole gender, nearly half of the world lacks intelligence is in itself stupid AND sexist.

I’m a man, not always smart, and a big fan of distilled liquor. I also live just across the Ohio river from Kentucky’s bourbon country. Whenever I hear of some overpriced aperitif aged in bourbon barrels, I just smile to myself, drive across the big bridge to the Bluegrass State, head for the party store, and buy the real thing. Breasts never enter into it.

Of course, the mirror image product would be a wine cooler poured over the penis of a buff male body builder. Somehow I don’t think that would sell.

Statistically speaking, for every twenty men stupid enough to buy breast-liquor, there will be one who is stupid enough to buy a penis-cooler. That comes out to around 250 bottles of penis-poured cooler.

You are a smart guy, and you have a fair point at #8 (which, incidentally, I assumed was a given anyway, but it is fair enough to make the distinction).

But this post isn’t about women’s shoes. It isn’t about “girls are better than boys” or indiscriminate male-bashing. There is no reason to pick some sort of opposite thing to expound on every time one writes an article. So I’m kind of wondering what your point is here.

Well, that’s really clever marketing if you automatically exclude more than 50% of your potential consumer base.
Do they still think that men are the only people to buy strong liquor?

I guess that includes those without taste to begin with.

Yes, as I heard them talk about their wonderful products I knew everything about the women’s tits but nothing about the actual spirit. So, I know the Whisky is a single malt cask strength. Ehm, what is it? Bourbon? Canadian rye? Scotch? Whiskey? Lowland, Highland, islands, Speyside? Heavily peated or lightly peated? No peated at all?
Hello-o?
Same for the rum. Where does it come from?

Sidenote, there’s nothing worse that German hipster guys who use a lot of English words without knowing what they mean or how to pronounce them.

To be fair, write a post about women who have so many pairs of shoes that they can, at best, wear each one only once or twice in their life.

How about you linking us to some shoes women are supposed to buy because they all touched the dick of Bad Pitt. Or women who actually have between 10.950 and 21.900 pairs of shoes.

Since they’re making it a limited edition, they’ve already decided to automatically exclude a whole lot more than 50% of their potential customer base. For example, let’s randomly say that there are ‘only’ 1 million men in the world stupid enough to buy this; with only 5000 bottles available, that’s a 99.5% exclusion just among that 1 million.

I’m with Phillip: shoes on sale in our local malls are at least as stupid as that. At least the breast-booze doesn’t ruin your toes and threaten to break your ankle, or to be more likely to screw your liver than any other type of liquor. I see women at my work whose walking ‘style’ is constantly on the tipping-point of disaster.
Let’s just say that there are really stupid people out there and that their stupidity may vary. (How else can you explain the Tea baggers?)

If you read more closely, you’ll find you’re not with Phillip at all – he’s talking about women owning an unnecessary number of shoes, while you’re talking about the absurdity of wearing shoes that are uncomfortable, unsafe and damaging. Neither of which has any bearing on the concept of buying a bottle of something that was once a drink but is now technically bathwater, simply because it made contact with a hot female body and comes with a naked photo of said body.

There’s a book out called “Born to Run” which actually notes that artificial arches are probably a bad idea.

And in Japan, I always used to hear that geta — these clog-like sandals with raised soles (which are really weird to walk in) were good for your health in some fashion (I did not speak Japanese well enough to understand, it was about the chi energy or something).

A) People do talk about flipflops. It’s just that you don’t get Gucci palm-tree flipflops, so they aren’t noticed as much.
B) What job has a requirement to buy a new, yet similar looking brand of shoes every day?

Are men truly that stupid, yes, unfortunately some of us are. However, doing some quick maths, assuming a 70cl bottle (common size for spirits in Europe), this would mean pouring 924 US gallons (769 Imperial Gallons., 3500 litres) over this woman’s breasts. Really? For someone dependent on her looks for a living would this amount of alcohol cause problems, do we really believe that this happened or is it just marketing BS?

“… this would mean pouring 924 US gallons (769 Imperial Gallons., 3500 litres) over this woman’s breasts. Really? For someone dependent on her looks for a living would this amount of alcohol cause problems …”

I don’t know about the potential negative effects from the alcohol (dry skin? persistent liquor-y smell?), but the logistics of getting 924 gallons of liquid to touch her breasts is more doable than it may seem at first. For comparison, an average US bathtub holds around 50 gallons, a non-low-flow shower puts out at least 5 gallons a minute (so 50 gallons in 10 minutes). (A low-flow shower puts out 2.5 gallons a minute.) So in less than 3 weeks of daily baths/showers, the average person may have had a similar amount of water exposed to their body.

How surprising that it only took a few posts for “what about silly things women do” to be brought in.

The blog is about a silly sex gimmick being used to sell a product to silly men. It’s not about women or shoes. As a man I’m quite happy for the stupid foibles of our gender to be scrutinised without having to go to “but…but…women are silly too!”

Heck, I have friends who believe bottled water really comes from natural springs like the commercials say. So yes, men are that stupid.

Though to be honest, I think most of the men who will buy this will probably do so for the collection or showing-off aspect, rather than because they think there’s any difference in taste or product quality.

I once overheard a “health” conversation about water at the gym: A guy explained to his buddy that he doesn’t like to drink tap water because it’s full of limescale and all kinds of metal traces from the pipes that it goes through. (This was in a part of Germany with absolutely excellent tap water.) Then he went on to praise the extra-special expensive bottled water he buys, which has “a lot of Calcium” and “tons of trace elements”.
9th grade chemistry rules.

Having grown up in New Orleans, drinking Eau Du Ol’ Man River, I get a good laugh out of those ads for overpriced water. BTW, New Orleans tapwater has placed high or first in every blind taste test since they started keeping records. But then, the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board is *careful* about quality control, since their source is the main drain of North America.

I’m predicting that there are definitely enough people dumb enough to go for such a product. It’s only a matter of time after the initial bottles sell out that the makers brownstorm up another wonderous creation: Rump Rum. One can desperately hope that the alcohol content is high enough to take care of the nasty body flora that inhabit the backside area.

If that product sells out, they will then see if there is a branch out market, by unveiling Dongwater. No details are available at present.

Hmm this reminds me of the study where they said a shirt had touched dog poop or the shirt had been worn by a serial killer then cleaned and people preffered the dog poop one. There’s actually some social psychology research that says this might very well work. Curse our silly brains.

The analogies to some women’s foibles (about shoes or whatever) are perfectly appropriate.

Suppose the post was about some stereotypically feminine foible that only a small percentage of women had in such an extreme form, and the post was titled “Are women truly that stupid?”

(Or pick any other group you might care about, like say atheists or liberals, or blacks or Jews.)

Would that be OK? Oh hell no, and rightly not.

There are major ambiguities in such phrases.

First off, it’s not clear whether they’re talking about a few, more than a few, most, or all members of the group.

And it is very easy to interpret carelessness about about such ambiguity as using any old excuse to bash the whole group based on the behavior of a minority of members.

It’s easy to think that the extreme foible being explicitly pointed out—which is obviously not shared by most members of the group—is supposed to somehow indicate something wrong with the group in general. (Else why point it out?)

Asking “are there any men truly that stupid?” wouldn’t be interesting. Of course there are. Nobody’d be surprised by that. There are some spectacularly stupid people in every major demographic.

So clearly the title is meant to suggest something interestingly beyond that pedestrian observation, and specifically about men. (Else why not ask “are people truly that stupid?” Duh, yes, some of them. Too many? Duh, yes.)

It seems natural to assume it’s meant to suggest that there’s something particularly wrong with men as a group, and it’s insufficiently clear how wrong with how many members of the group.

And it’s not just a suggestion that men are on average more prone to being titillated by visual erotica and the like, which would also not be particularly interesting. It’s not just a question of how shallowly horny “too many” guys tend to be, but apparently how stupid they tend to be. (Guys only think with their dicks?)

Which does understandably raise the question of compared to whom?

It’s easy to interpret as saying that guys are generally stupid compared to women.

As a feminist, I would be pissed off by a comparable post titled “are women truly that stupid?”

I understand the punching up vs. punching down thing, and I agree with it up to a point, so I’m not nearly as annoyed by a similarly unfair-seeming post about men, but I do think this was uncool. There shouldn’t be that much of a double standard, where you can seemingly make such sloppy vague generalizations about men being stupid.

Like PZ says, it’s fine to insult people who deserve it, but aim your insults.

I think that most people here, including me, would understand that this isn’t the general man-hating kind of thing it might seem to be—that yes, Taslima knows not all men are like that, and doesn’t really mean to imply that they are. And that yes, she knows women as a group have some common foibles, too… but what exactly is she trying to say, and what isn’t she, given the obvious questions that come up? Or does she not care, as long as it’s negative and about men? Is this like Rush Limbaugh pointing out atypical liberal behavior while railing about “liberals”?

It’s sloppy, and does provide fodder for the man-hating feminist double-standard stereotype.

I thought the post was funny, but sloppy, and I probably wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't for the title.

It's not really clear to me which way the humorlessness goes.

It seems pretty obvious to me that very, very few men would actually find booze poured over models' boobs very titillating, and e.g., use it as a masturbatory aid. Video porn and regular booze is gonna be vastly more effective for most
guys who’d be interested at all.

But not as funny.

It’s a silly gag gift, like a giant dildo for somebody who’d never actually use a giant dildo in earnest.

Such gifts are especially funny if there’s a little frisson of actual titillation. Guys may actually find booze that’s been poured over fabulous babes’ tits a little exciting, and find that interesting and particularly funny. It’s ironic.

It’s an over-the-top joke for guys who can laugh at their own weird foibles.

IMO the guys buying it aren’t stupid, and the guys marketing it aren’t stupid at all—they’re just aware that there’s a market for over-the-top gag gifts for somewhat self-aware guys who want to joke about their own superficial horniness.

Maybe Taslima and everybody here gets that, and Taslima is just joking in a silly way about a silly joke, but that’s really not clear from either the post or the comments.

That’s the kind of ambiguous stuff that can get jokesters accused of misogyny if they carelessly do it about women—and often rightly. It should be crystal clear that the joker really is being ironic, and how, and to what extent.

The day the level of systematic abuse that men are exposed to reaches a measurable fraction of what women have to put up with, you can start telling me about double standards. In the mean time, if you think the language in the OP of this thread is even worth mentioning, I’m proud to be considered an asshole in your eyes. (You can thank MRAs).

I understand not treating people equally against a backdrop of pervasive unequal treatment—that just perpetuates injustice. I understand punching up vs. punching down. I’m for affirmative action for women.

I’m not saying that we should just treat men and women equally, if others don’t.

The double standards I’m mainly concerned with are mostly rhetorical—should feminists make bad arguments, or unfair innuendos, of the type that we object to coming from MRA’s, when they’re at the expense of women.

I don’t think so. (And I don’t think most feminists do.) It undermines the credibility of feminism.

Offending a few oversensitive men is one thing. Making feminism look stupid and mean and anti-men is another, and I care a lot more about the latter.

We can’t expect affirmative action in standards of argument. We have to argue credibly.

There’s a gray area in between, in terms of what kind of balance or even-handedness is expected in what people choose to blog about, and how they blog about it.

I think it’s fine if Taslima chooses to point out men’s foibles more than she points out women’s, in order to push back against widespread biases against women. That is a good and necessary thing, up to a point, done right.

I think it’s the kind of thing you need to be a bit careful about, though, so that it doesn’t come across as biased and/or hypocritical man-bashing.

Feminists often appeal to standards of argument when criticizing shit men say about women—e.g., about not making sloppy generalizations from anecdotes. That doesn’t work as well if we don’t apply those standards to ourselves. It invites ridicule and hostility rather than engagement with the good arguments.

There are plenty of good arguments for feminism. Why resort to bad ones, or be sloppy?

Come on, I haven’t said all men are stupid. I rather blame the G-Spirits liquor company for thinking men are stupid and they will buy their alcohol only because they claim that every drop of their alcohol has touched women’s breasts!

I thought I made it reasonably clear that I didn’t think you actually said or believe that men are generally stupid—that just wasn’t the issue.

I thought what you said was sloppily ambiguous, and quite reasonably construable as unfair, in a way that a lot of people around here would object to if you made such vague, negative generalizations about “stupid” women.

That’s the kind of thing that many feminists around here criticize about jokes about women—often rightly IMO. They don’t like jokes that are too easy to construe as too sincerely too negative about too many women, even if the joker really didn’t mean that, and even if you can be pretty sure that the joker didn’t mean that, if you’re familiar with the joker.

They rightly worry about how too many people in an audience may miss some of the irony or intended specificity, and gleefully agree with seriously or broadly misogynistic sentiments, even if that was probably not intended, and even it should be clear to sophisticated audiences that it wasn’t intended.

We’ve recently had a lot of exchanges around FtB about joking about women, rape, etc., with a lot of people being remarkably unsympathetic to excuses about it being just a joke, or only about some women, or being ironically over-the-top and so on.

We’ve heard a lot about comedians’ responsibility for how their jokes are actually interpreted, given the popular stereotypes they’re messing with—and often that comics generally just aren’t good enough to do it right, and should avoid those jokes entirely because it’s just too easy for too many people to hear them in a bad way and take away the wrong message, intended or not.

I think those are real issues, even if I disagree with some of those people on some cases, or on extreme prescriptions for dealing with the problem. (E.g., that nobody should ever make rape jokes, men should never make rape jokes or superficially misogynistic jokes, that people should avoid playing to those stereotypes, even ironically, because it tends to reinforce those schemas even if you’re negating them, and so on.)

And I think we should be careful not to have too much of a double standard about this. We shouldn’t count on audiences knowing the speaker well enough to resolve major ambiguities correctly.

Imagine a post titled “Are women truly this stupid?” that proceeded to talk about some apparently stupid women, and how either they’re stupid or some other women are stupid for thinking they are, without making it clear how very narrowly the criticism are meant, and that the author actually understands where those women are coming from.

I really don’t think that would go over well, and it shouldn’t. We’d get a lot of “that’s not funny!” and “I do get the joke but you shouldn’t joke like that” and the like.

I don’t think you’re a misandrist (or humorless, or unfunny), but I do think this post could easily be interpreted those ways, to any of various degrees, and that that’s something to be concerned about.

Maybe not, but suppose you went over to an MRA site and blogged about it under the title “are women truly this stupid?,” inviting hoots of derision about those stupid women.

Context matters.

People constantly try to infer why a speaker is saying what they say. (Mostly unconsciously.) They guess what your point is in bothering to say something.

In the context of a discussion that’s simply about marketing a product, it’s pretty obvious that you’re not really asking whether all or most women are stupid—you’re asking whether there’s a non-negligible minority of women who are stupid enough to buy your product. The question is obviously about whether there’s a big enough minority of especially “stupid” women to make your product marketable, even if the large majority of women are much, much smarter.

When you bother to take it to an MRA site and point it out there, to people who have no stake in the marketing issue, it’s not so obvious that you only mean to point and laugh at a tiny, grossly non-representative minority of women.

Many people—rightly I think—would guess that you were trying to imply that lots more women are pretty stupid too, and that the tiny minority who buy the Fabio-touched product are the tip of a more interesting iceberg.

To make it clear how much context matters, imagine a website with a regular feature called “Feminist Follies,” which has little articles about extremely kooky feminists saying patently wacky shit.

If you found that on a feminist website, you’d probably infer something very different about its purpose than if you found it on an MRA website.

On a feminist website, it’d come across mostly as laughing about a clearly non-representative minority, without meaning to undermine feminism in general, and maybe an attempt at maintaining standards of feminism, by criticizing kooky feminism from within mainstream feminism. It probably wouldn’t be anti-feminist in a general way, or perceived as such by most people who understood the context.

On an MRA website, you could be pretty sure it was there for quite different reasons, right?

When people see a post titled “Are men truly this stupid?” they will naturally wonder similarly why it’s there, and make similar inferences.

If the fact that some men care whether their liquor touched an actual “hot” model’s actual body seems all that strange to you,
think about collectors of authentic artifacts, e.g., genuine old Coca-Cola ads, first editions of novels, or antique furniture or swords, or think about people who own actual Stradivarius violins or Picasso paintings.

People tend to like physical objects that have a historic causal connection to things they’re told are significant, even if they couldn’t tell the difference between the real thing and a good fake.

For example, some fake Stradivariuses sound better than some real ones. (Not all Strads were equally good, and some made by the master himself were inferior to some made by his students.) But that doesn’t keep some professional violinists who’ve played a beloved “Stradivarius” or “Amati” violin for years from being terribly embarrassed or even heartbroken to find out that their truly wonderful-sounding violin “is just a fake.”

Weird. Perverse.

And I think it’s kinda weird how many people care about historic sites and buildings, even if they’re just rubble. (I’ve visited sites of e.g., a piece of Roman wall in Britain, where even if there’s nothing but a few stones left, you’re supposed to care that there was once a Roman wall right here—and I wished I’d gone to the pub for a good English ale, and read something actually interesting about the history instead.)

I’d say it’s perverse that so many women want to own things like real Wedgwood china, 100-year old sideboards, a handkerchief Elvis wiped his sweat with and threw into a crowd of screaming women, and the like—or even ticket stubs from dates they’ve personally been on, to put in scrapbooks.

Would that justify a post tiled “are women truly that stupid?”

I don’t think so.

I understand that female obsessions with things like antigues and scrapbooking don’t victimize men in nearly the same way that male obsessions with female bodies do. It’s weird, and IMO probably a bad thing on the whole, but it’s just not a social problem of comparable magnitude. It’s probably not worth posting about, except as geeky issue in psychology, or perhaps as part of the general social issue of the psychology consumption and accumulation.

But this post about men and booze and boobs doesn’t seem very enlightening, even if it’s about a more important subject.

It shouldn’t be at all surprising that some men would buy such things, given the very common human trait of wanting “real” things that were actually there, plus the common male disposition to be interested in sex and female beauty (however socially constructed that also is).

BTW, I have a cousin who IIRC has some Elvis artifacts she paid good money for. I don’t think she’s stupid, just kinky.

Ah, George. He nailed this one too. “Marketing and advertizng is all about explointing our insecurities. If you you don’t have any, they’ll be glad to give you some… by showing you a model with big tits.” Bonus, it works on both male and famale insecurities!

This really is stupid. I’m not so worried about the stupidity of the guys who buy it though. I’m far more worried that the person who though of the idea will come to the USA and become a congressman.

It also sounds a bit unsanitary.

And to answer your question, yes; people are stupid.

How many people buy dandruff shampoo because of some made-up faux pas.

Xe’s good looking, smart(?), well dressed, nice job, well coiffed, decent person, but xe’ll completely disappear because ze scratched zir head, and “ooops, could be dandruff”? I’ll buy this shampoo!

Car ads are always about being cool.

I repeat, men are that dumb because people are dumb.

Shoot, I’m trying to find a (probably crappy) wine because it is “Motorhead Shiraz”. In case you don’t get the reference, if means I am buying a bottle of wine for a printed label.

And just for the blechs, it might start a trend! “Every drop of wine has passed over a member of Motorhead after a 90 minute performance”

The title of this post brought me here, guns blazing, to see what was being said about men here and then defend “my” position. Then I read it and now I’m sad. Of course there’s an abundance of stupid men in this world when I think about who’d buy this stuff. I’ve dealt with a bunch myself.

I suppose the real issue here isn’t whether all, some, or no men are this stupid, or whether the same thing applies to women, but rather the fact that people will attempt to sell whiskey that has touched boobs to men, but the equivalent is not attempted with women. Where’s the whiskey that has been poured over Johnny Depp? There isn’t any. Why not? Well, it wouldn’t sell, would it?

Actually I know several women who would strongly consider buying alcohol that had been poured over Johnny Depp (or several other actors). They wouldn’t be stupid enough to pay a lot of money for it though.

Your comment about hot chocolate is just silly though, they wouldn’t buy it; they’d storm the factory and devour it off his body.

As crude an example as this is the sellers aren’t playing on the gullibility, or stupidity, of men. They are plying on a known common defect and blind spot in the human mind. Sellers have long known that you don’t sell actual things as much as selling “sizzle”, the hype and anticipation of how special and good the product will be. You are also selling associations.

Take some middling booze, pour it over the breasts of a woman, and sell it for three times what its worth means that this product is about 66% sizzle. This is going to play well with people overcompensating sexually. Over the hill males who need a pill to get it up can better play the playboy card conspicuously consuming this stuff. The hype is that this guy is so much a ladies man that even his liquor has to have a bit of pretty lady in it.

People are easily effected by brand names, hype and current fashion. A Gucci handbag is not significantly better at shlepping around stuff than a flour sack. It is sizzle that justifies the extra thousand dollars.

I won’t deny some of these comments are getting on my nerves because they seem to be directed so generally. Yes, some men are truly this stupid, the beer guzzling, slack jawed, sports crazy kind maybe. However, I, and many other men, share no more in common with these morons than that we both have male equipment.

Sorry, sometimes it gets old with how often men are depicted in western culture and media as idiots, when compared to our female counter parts.

I wanted to draft you the little note to help thank you very much again considering the spectacular techniques you have discussed on this page. This has been surprisingly generous with people like you in giving easily exactly what many people would’ve offered as an e-book to get some profit for themselves, principally since you could possibly have tried it in the event you wanted. The tactics in addition acted as a great way to fully grasp that some people have the same zeal really like my personal own to understand a good deal more on the subject of this matter. I think there are many more fun sessions in the future for individuals who scan through your website.

I would also eat a chocolate with an advertisement that it was inserted in a models clean vagina during her non-menstrual days and stayed in there for say 2 minutes. Of course the company would take care of her consent. I would prefer the cute Rashmi Desai.

Might be Immortal would love united states of america to get to know a couple faulty everyone in the past reaching the correct one, so that once we eventually fulfill the man or women, exploration aren’t able to wind up being happy.